BEFORE AND AFTER TANF:
THE UTILIZATION OF NONCASH PUBLIC BENEFITS
BY WOMEN LEAVING WELFARE IN WISCONSIN
Maria Cancian, Robert Haveman, Thomas Kaplan, Daniel R. Meyer, Ingrid Rothe, and Barbara Wolfe
with Sandra Barone
Institute for Research on Poverty
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Draft: November 17, 2000
This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation. Data were provided by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development.
Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsoring institutions. The
authors thank Dan Ross for assistance with construction of the data and Dawn Duren for assistance in
preparing the manuscript.
Abstract
Welfare caseloads have fallen sharply since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), raising questions about the post-welfare
experiences of welfare leavers, including whether leavers are participating in Food Stamps and Medicaid
when they are eligible for these supports. This paper describes patterns of participation in these two
programs for two groups of women who left welfare in Wisconsin, those who left cash welfare in late
1995 (under early welfare reform) and those who left welfare two years later, in the early stages of
implementation of Wisconsin Works (W-2), the state’s TANF program.
We use administrative data to examine the receipt of Food Stamps and Medicaid among those
who are income-eligible at some point in the first year after exit. These take-up rates vary from 60 percent
of the 1995 leavers receiving Food Stamps to 92 percent of the 1997 leavers having someone in their
families receiving Medicaid. We also conduct multivariate analyses of take-up. Selected findings include:
(1) the take-up of both Medicaid and Food Stamps increased between 1995 and 1997; (2) working while
still receiving cash benefits is positively associated with take-up of noncash benefits after the cash grant
ends; (3) the take-up of benefits declines substantially over time even among those who remain eligible
for them. We examine a longer timeframe for the 1995 leavers and find that the take-up of these benefits
declines steadily over the three years.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Welfare caseloads have fallen sharply since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), raising questions about the post-welfare
experiences of welfare leavers. Early evidence suggests that most women who left welfare under initial
reforms found jobs, although most of them did not earn enough to escape poverty (see Loprest, 1999 and
GAO, 1999a for reviews of state-specific studies of leavers). Concerns have arisen over the take-up of
means-tested in-kind benefits of the women who leave welfare, and hence the effectiveness of these
benefits in supporting the well-being of these welfare leavers.
This paper describes patterns of receipt of Food Stamp and Medicaid benefits for two groups of
women who left welfare in Wisconsin. The first group left the main means-tested cash program, Aid to
Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC in late 1995 (under early welfare reform); the second group
left welfare two years later, after the implementation of Wisconsin Works (W-2), the state’s Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF program. PRWORA authorized TANF as a replacement for
AFDC.
The experience of Wisconsin is of particular interest because it has often been viewed as an early
leader in welfare reform. Wisconsin began work-based welfare reforms in the late 1980s and
implemented several major reforms in the mid-1990s before PRWORA.1 Additional reforms were
implemented after PRWORA. Starting in March 1996, most AFDC case heads had at least 20 hours of
JOBS program participation per week under a new Pay for Performance initiative, which also imposed a
penalty equal to the federal hourly minimum wage for each missed hour. The new Wisconsin Works (W2) program under PRWORA took effect over a seven-month period in late 1997 and early 1998. Under
W-2, no assistance is available to families unless they participate in work or work preparation activities.
1
These include a Parental and Family Responsibility initiative and a Two-Tier AFDC Benefit
Demonstration in 1994 (both initiatives covered four counties and both included Milwaukee County, by far the
state’s largest) and the Work Not Welfare program in two counties in 1995.
2
Owing to Wisconsin’s early start in enforcing intensive work obligations, an analysis of the use
of Food Stamp and Medicaid benefits by those who left the caseload during the mid-1990s can provide
important insight into noncash benefit use by those who have left and will leave under reforms
implemented later in other states. Moreover, a comparison of those who left welfare before the 1996
reforms with those who left under the later, more stringent, work-based policy, can reveal the
relationships between these two policy models and the subsequent use of noncash benefits.
Wisconsin is a good state for the study of noncash benefit use among leavers for other reasons as
well. Since 1994, the state has operated an integrated automated case management system—called the
Client Assistance and Re-employment System, or CARES—which merges data on cash welfare benefits,
Food Stamp receipt, and Medicaid eligibility. The information on the receipt and level of benefits in each
of these programs in the same data system eliminates the need to match participants across the benefit
programs. Wisconsin also has a county-administered income maintenance system, which leaves room for
local variation in administrative practice and could allow for consideration of the impact of management
practice on Food Stamp and Medicaid take-up rates among welfare leavers. Finally, the percentage of
non-citizens among Wisconsin’s leavers is relatively low, which is helpful to our analysis because
eligibility changes for non-citizens in the PRWORA legislation complicate comparisons over time for this
group of leavers (see below).
II.
PRIOR RESEARCH ON NONCASH BENEFIT USE AMONG LEAVERS
The Urban Institute’s National Survey of American Families (NSAF) has provided much of the
recent national evidence concerning Food Stamp and Medicaid utilization among welfare leavers. Based
on the survey, Zedlewski and Brauner (1999) revealed that of families with children who (a) had received
Food Stamps at some time since the beginning of 1995, (b) were still income-eligible for Food Stamps,
and (c) were former cash welfare recipients, just 42 percent were receiving Food Stamps when they were
3
surveyed in 1997 . These take-up rates are similar to those found in earlier studies of a broader population
of former recipients who were eligible (Blank and Ruggles, 1993).
The NSAF also provides national estimates on the Medicaid utilization of former welfare
recipients. Garrett and Holohan (2000) report that, among women who stopped receiving cash welfare
benefits some time between January 1995 and 1997 (the year in which they were interviewed), just 36
percent reported receiving Medicaid at the time of the interview, while 41 percent were uninsured.2 Of
children living in families who had left welfare, 50 percent were receiving Medicaid or other state health
insurance, and 25 percent were uninsured.
Dion and Pavetti (2000) summarized state studies of Food Stamp and Medicaid benefit utilization
among former welfare recipients. They found that studies using administrative data estimated that from
30 percent to 45 percent of former welfare recipients were still on Food Stamps 12 months after leaving
welfare. In contrast, estimates of Food Stamp use among welfare leavers based on survey data range from
a low of 29 percent in New York State to a high of 60 percent in South Carolina. Medicaid use 12 months
after exit was somewhat higher, ranging between 36 percent and 76 percent in the studies using
administrative data and between 30 percent and 78 percent in studies based on surveys.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS) also has summarized (at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/ombsum.htm) results from leavers studies it has funded. Estimates from
these studies of Food Stamp participation 12 months after leaving welfare were slightly lower, but
generally similar, to the estimates reported by Dion and Pavetti. The studies funded by DHHS showed
Food Stamp use 12 months after leaving welfare by 20 percent to 40 percent of leavers. Medicaid use 12
months after leaving welfare ranged quite widely in the DHHS-funded studies, from 15 percent to about
60 percent.
2
Another 23 percent of mothers (27 percent of children) had private health coverage and 4 percent of
mothers (2 percent of children) received coverage through the military or through Medicare.
4
The national literature generally discounts program ineligibility as a significant reason for the
relatively low use of both Food Stamps and Medicaid. Most families leaving welfare have incomes well
under 130 percent of the federal poverty line, the gross income maximum for Food Stamp eligibility.3
Medicaid has even higher income limits and expanded coverage for children.4
These low take-up rates among eligible leavers in both the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs
are not new, and predate PRWORA and recent state welfare reforms. Ellwood and Adams (1990) found
that only 5 percent to 12 percent of families leaving cash welfare in Georgia and California in the early
1980s continued on Medicaid.5 Moffitt and Slade (1997) report that just 52 percent of mothers in the
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth who left welfare participated in Medicaid one year later. In
addition, Blank and Ruggles (1993) reported that a “substantial portion” of welfare leavers in the 1986
and 1987 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation remained eligible to participate in the
Food Stamp Program but chose not to do so. Still, concerns about Food Stamp and Medicaid take-up have
intensified as the number of cash benefit leavers has risen. There is concern that states have not been
successful in delinking Medicaid from cash welfare eligibility. With fewer families receiving cash
welfare, this traditional link to Medicaid and Food Stamps has been removed. This is of concern because
3
The PRWORA legislation reduced eligibility for Food Stamps for families at the high end of the eligibility
range by dropping the basic Food Stamp benefit to 100 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan (from 103 percent) and
freezing the standard deduction at 1996 levels. However, these modifications had more effect on overall benefit
levels than on the number of eligible families (Zedlewski and Brauner, 1999). PRWORA also eliminated eligibility
for legal immigrants who have not accumulated at least 40 quarters of social security coverage or served in the U.S.
military. However, the Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 reinstated Food Stamp
eligibility for legal elderly, disabled and child immigrants who were living in the U.S. when PRWORA was passed.
However, those who entered after PRWORA are eligible for only emergency services, unless they obtain citizenship.
4
Under the Family Support Act of 1988, families who have received Medicaid in 3 of the last 6 months and
leave welfare owing to increased earnings retain Medicaid eligibility for 6 months regardless of income. Families
that leave welfare due to increased income from child support retain Medicaid eligibility for 4 months after leaving.
Both groups receive another 6 month extension if their household incomes (less disregards for child care expenses)
do not exceed 185 percent of the federal poverty line. In addition, federal law requires states to provide Medicaid to
children under age six with family incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty line and to all children born
after September 30, 1983 with incomes below the federal poverty line. Indeed, most states have expanded Medicaid
coverage (or coverage under the state Children’s Health Insurance Program enacted in 1997) for children well
beyond these minimum requirements.
5
The experiences captured by this study took place under a substantially different regime than that of the
later studies as the 1988 legislation extended Medicaid eligibility for 12 months after leaving AFDC.
5
families who leave cash welfare are much less likely to successfully transition to self-sufficiency if they
to not receive the critical supports of Food Stamps and Medicaid to which many are entitled.
III.
PRIOR RESEARCH ON NONCASH BENEFIT USE AMONG WISCONSIN LEAVERS
The literature on benefit use among Wisconsin leavers has been limited. Relying on
administrative data, Cancian et al. (1999b) found a 46 percent first-quarter-post-exit take-up rate for Food
Stamps and Medicaid among those who left the Wisconsin AFDC program in late 1995 and early 1996
and who remained off for at least five quarters after exit. The proportion participating in both Food
Stamps and Medicaid declined to 28 percent in the fifth quarter after exit.6 The authors did not estimate
the percentage of leavers who would have been eligible for the programs. However, all those who left for
work are eligible for at least 6 months of transitional Medicaid.
The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (1998) has also reported on benefit use
by those who received cash benefits between January 1 and March 31, 1998 (during the transition period
from AFDC to W-2, so that some participants still received AFDC and some participants were receiving
W-2) and who had stopped receiving any cash benefits (whether AFDC or W-2) by April 1, 1998. The
data derive from a survey of 547 randomly selected leavers, with a response rate of 69 percent. At the
time of their interviews (which occurred from five to eleven months after they stopped receiving cash
benefits), 185 (49 percent) were receiving food stamps, and 282 (75 percent) of the leavers or their family
members received Medicaid. An additional 44 (8 percent) reported that they or one or more of their
family members had some other kind of medical insurance.
Most of the public controversy concerning Food Stamps and Medicaid usage in Wisconsin has
focused on overall declines in the Food Stamp and Medicaid caseloads, not on participation rates for
6
An additional 2.6 percent received Food Stamps only and 37 percent received Medicaid only in the first
quarter after exit; in the fifth quarter after exit, another 3 percent received Food Stamps only, and 28 percent
received Medicaid only.
6
those who leave welfare. The U.S. General Accounting Office (1999) reported that Wisconsin
experienced the fourth largest Food Stamp caseload decline in the country (a drop of 34 percent) between
August 1996 and August 1998. The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau (2000) reported that between
March 1995 and July 1999, the low point for Food Stamp participation for the decade of the 1990s, the
number of people receiving Food Stamps dropped by 45 percent.7 The Audit Bureau also estimated that
97 percent of all Wisconsin residents below the poverty line received Food Stamps in 1994 but that this
proportion declined to 70 percent in 1998. Wisconsin has also ranked among the top states in its Medicaid
caseload decline. Using edited federal administrative data from the Health Care Financing
Administration, Ku and Bruen (1999) reported that Wisconsin had the third largest Medicaid caseload
decline among children without a disability and their parents (a drop of 18.6 percent) between 1995 and
1997. As of 1997, 32.9 percent of the poverty population was covered by Medicaid in Wisconsin
compared to an overall U.S. rate of 38.9 percent. Among children the comparable percentages are 51.4
percent in Wisconsin and 57 percent nationally (Urban Institute, 2000 [Table 2]).8
IV.
DATA AND METHODS
This paper reports on the demographic characteristics and patterns of Food Stamp and Medicaid
utilization of two cohorts of single mothers who left cash assistance in Wisconsin—those who left during
initial welfare reform (the final quarter of 1995) and those who left during the early stages of TANF (the
final quarter of 1997). We define a woman as having left welfare if she does not receive cash benefits for
two consecutive months, beginning in the last quarter of 1995 or 1997.
7
However, Wisconsin Food Stamp caseloads rose modestly—by an average of 0.8 percent per month from
July 1999 to April 2000 (Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, 2000).
8
The percentage of the poverty population without any health insurance coverage was substantially lower in
Wisconsin than in the nation as a whole: the overall uninsured rate for this population was 24.2 percent in Wisconsin
and 32.7 percent in the nation.(Ibid, Table 2.)
7
The analysis reported here is based on administrative data from the state of Wisconsin. We have
merged data from (1) the CARES system, which includes information collected in administering AFDC,
W-2, and related means-tested programs, (2) the Computer Reporting Network (CRN) system, the
precursor of CARES, providing earlier AFDC administrative data useful for constructing an AFDC
history for each case, and (3) the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system, which includes information on
quarterly earnings. For welfare leavers who have not returned to the cash benefit system, we estimate
eligibility for Food Stamp and Medicaid benefits by assuming that the earnings reported to the UI system
represent a family’s quarterly income (See Appendix 1.)
Several important limitations must be kept in mind in interpreting our results. We have data only
on public assistance received in Wisconsin and on earnings reported to the Wisconsin UI system. Hence,
we have no information on individuals who moved out of state, no measures of earnings of individuals in
Wisconsin who are self-employed or in other employment not covered by the UI system (covered workers
include about 91 percent of official Wisconsin workers).9 We do have measures of the earnings of other
adults living in the household of the leavers (as they enter or leave the unit from either the AFDC or FS
case from the CARES system), but not of other income sources such as property income, or of other
adults living in the household but not reported in the CARES system.10 For our sample, these other
income sources would have to be nontrivial ($2,500–$3,000 per quarter) to push the typical household
past the eligibility threshold for Food Stamps. Because the nonearnings sources of income are unknown
but presumably small for this population, we believe that the degree of overstatement in our estimate of
9
For the 1995 cohort, 17.5 percent of the households had no earnings recorded in the UI system during the
first year after exit from AFDC. Of these, 48.7 percent also do not receive any other services (AFDC, food stamps,
or Medicaid), suggesting that they may have left the state. For the 1997 cohort, there are 15 percent with no reported
earnings during the year. Of these, 24.3 percent also do not receive other services.
10
During the first year after exit the percentage of households in which we observe earnings of household
members other than the mother range from a low of 8.4 percent in the first quarter after exit to a high of 10.7 percent
in the fourth quarter after exit for the 1995 cohort. For the 1997 cohort the range is from 6.9 percent in the first
quarter after exit to 10.2 percent in the fourth quarter after exit.
8
the eligible population from this source is not substantial.11 Because the UI data are quarterly while
eligibility is based on monthly income, we make the simplifying assumption that the household’s earnings
are equally distributed over the 3 month period. This may result in overestimates of the population ever
eligible, and some inaccuracy in defining the period of eligibility.12 Although we have no way to estimate
assets, the value of which may lead some low income families to be ineligible for Food Stamps or
Medicaid, Zedlewski, and Brauner (1999) estimate that very few income-eligible families are made
ineligible by the assets test.
As noted above, eligibility for legal immigrants under the Food Stamp program changed
substantially over this period (see note 3). Because eligibility policies for legal immigrants changed so
much between our 1995 and 1997 samples, and because we are unable to determine if or when
immigrants obtain citizenship, we have omitted the 1.8 percent of leavers who were coded as non-citizens
at the time of welfare entry from the 1995 cohort, and the 3 percent of leavers who were coded as noncitizens in the 1997 cohort.
11
Evidence on the proportion of household income that is captured by the earnings of household members is
found in Moffitt and Roff (2000) and Isaacs and Lyon (2000). Their estimates indicate that the sum of adult earnings
in the households of the leavers accounts for about 75–80 percent of total household income, with public transfer
income accounting for nearly all of the remainder. Because we take into account the value of Food Stamps in our
measure of income and because we include all of the leavers household receiving Food Stamps or Medicaid in the
pool of eligibles, we conclude that our estimate of the size of the eligible population is not substantially greater than
the true pool of eligibles. See also Freedman et al. (2000), which contains information from the National Evaluation
of Welfare-to-Work Strategies on the sources of income of leavers, and on the extent to which they live with others
with income. Rolston (2000) notes the difficulties inherent in inferring overall family well-being based only on the
earnings data that are available from administrative sources.
12
For example, we may declare a family to be eligible for the entire period when they are only eligible for
one or two months, or find a family not eligible when they are eligible for a part of a quarter.
9
V.
WELFARE PARTICIPANTS AND EARLY AND LATE LEAVERS: SOME
COMPARISONS OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AND
LEAVERS
Before considering benefit utilization patterns for the groups of 1995 and 1997 leavers, we first
review the characteristics of the entire population of citizen welfare recipients in each period, and the
probability that those with various characteristics left cash assistance.13 The first column of Table 1 shows
the characteristics of the 48,197 women meeting the sample criteria who received cash welfare in
September 1995 (See Appendix 1 for sample criteria), and the third column shows the characteristics of
the much smaller group of 19,738 women receiving benefits two years later, on the eve of the
implementation of W-2. We count as “leavers” those who exit cash assistance within three months of our
initial observation, and remain off the welfare caseload for at least two consecutive months.14 While 16
percent of AFDC participants in September 1995 left the program in the next three months, a 40 percent
rate is recorded for recipients as of September 1997.
Although the characteristics of the two groups of recipients (and the two groups of leavers) are
fairly similar, the 1997 leavers have more barriers to employment than the 1995 leavers.15 This reflects
the characteristics of all recipients in 1997, as well as the higher rates of exit among less employable
recipients in the later year. The 1997 leavers included a higher proportion of women who are less likely to
achieve self-sustaining employment, including those:
•
without a high school degree (45 percent vs. 33 percent)
•
caring for more children (34 percent with 3 or more children vs. 23 percent)
•
in families with more very young children (27 percent with a child less than age 1 vs. 15
percent).
13
These comparisons are somewhat similar to those in Cancian et al. (2000). Here, however, we exclude
1413 non-citizens in 1995 and 870 in 1997.
14
Our sample includes both those who did and who did not return to welfare within the next calendar year.
15
See Cancian et al. 2000 for a discussion of the factors associated with employment and earnings.
10
•
living in Milwaukee County (56 vs. 39 percent) and
•
who are African-American (46 percent vs. 31 percent)
In other respects, the prospects of those leaving welfare in 1997 were similar to or only a little worse than
those leaving in 1995. For example, the 1997 leavers were less likely to have recently entered welfare (21
percent entered within the last three months, compared to 28 percent for the 1995 leavers). They also had
a little less recent work experience: (14 percent with earnings in all quarters in the prior two years vs. 19
percent).
VI.
BENEFIT RECEIPT IN THE YEAR AFTER LEAVING WELFARE FOR TWO
COHORTS
Table 2 compares the patterns of benefit receipt of the two cohorts in the year after exiting
welfare. The top line for each cohort shows the percentage of leavers who return to TANF/AFDC after
leaving the rolls. A somewhat lower percentage of women in the later cohort of leavers return to receipt
of cash benefit sometime during the 12 months following exit—25 percent vs. 29 percent.16 Among those
who return, however, the amount of cash benefits received is about $1,000 per year (or about 50 percent)
higher in the second cohort. In part, this reflects the higher W-2 benefits for families with one or two
children (effective in 1997) relative to the maximum benefits available in 1995.
The next panel in Table 2 shows the participation and benefit patterns of families eligible for
Food Stamps. While 60 percent of 1995 eligible leavers received Food Stamp benefits during the first
year after leaving, 82 percent of eligible 1997 leavers were Food Stamp recipients. One reason for the
greater take-up among the 1997 leavers may be that because they had lower income, they were eligible
16
About 18 percent of leavers receive cash benefits in most of the four quarters after leaving in the 1995
group. This percentage falls to about 15 percent in the 1997 group.
11
for larger amounts of Food Stamp benefits.17 (In a companion paper examining earnings and income, we
find that earnings and income among leavers in the later cohort were substantially lower than in the early
cohort [Cancian et al., 2000].) Because a somewhat lower percentage of the later cohort were receiving
cash benefits, the increase in Food Stamp take-up is probably not attributable to a return to cash benefits
and the implicit connection (no longer automatic under TANF, but still structural) to Food Stamps which
cash benefits entail. For both groups, the percentage of eligible leavers who received Food Stamps fell
over the four quarters after welfare exit, but the decline was modest—from 50 percent to 44 percent for
the 1995 cohort, and from 75 to 65 percent for the 1997 leavers.
This pattern of participation is also shown in Figure 1, which shows the distribution of Food
Stamp participants, eligible nonparticipants, and ineligibles for each quarter during the first three years
after leaving welfare for the 1995 cohort and the first year after leaving for the 1997 cohort. The share of
leavers who are participating declines fairly consistently across the three-year period for the 1995 cohort,
and also declines in the 1997 cohort. The declines are generally offset by increases in the share not
eligible; the percent eligible but not participating is fairly stable over time—though for the 1997 cohort,
the nonparticipation rate increases from 25 percent to 32 percent over the four quarters.
While the 1995 cohort averaged about $1,300 in Food Stamp benefits, the benefits for the 1997
cohort were over $1,900, a substantial increase. However, while the level of quarterly Food Stamp
benefits rose modestly over the year for the earlier cohort (from $436 in the first quarter to $477 in the
fourth quarter), they fell for those in the 1997 cohort of leavers (from $648 to $572 over the first four
quarters after leaving).
17
In future work, we plan to add the estimated amount of potential benefits into models of whether the
leavers participate in benefits. The amount of benefits received by participants did increase: in constant 1998 dollars,
the average Food Stamp benefit (for those receiving Food Stamps) over the year after exit was 44 percent higher
($1,925 compared to $1,339) for the 1997 cohort than the 1995 cohort. The differences are generally smaller
controlling for family size, [$1,043 versus $953 (9 percent) for families with one child; $1,728 versus $1,366 (27
percent) for families with two children, and $2,818 compared to $1,943 (45 percent) for families with three or more
children] but substantial nonetheless.
12
The third panel of Table 2 shows that the take-up rate in the Medicaid program18 also increased
between the two cohorts, though not by as much as the take-up rate in the Food Stamp program. About 80
percent of the 1995 eligible leaver participated in Medicaid at some point during the year after exit. This
increased to 92 percent of the 1997 eligible leavers. The Medicaid take-up rate decreased over the first
year after leaving for both cohorts—from 75 percent in the first quarter after exit to 63 percent in the
fourth quarter after exit for the early cohort, and from 89 to 82 percent for the later cohort.
Figures 2 and 3 show the patterns of Medicaid eligibility and participation for case heads and
children for both the 1995 and 1997 groups of leavers. Both figures show substantial declines in
participation over the period, and increases in the proportion not eligible. Figure 2 shows that those adults
eligible, but not participating, in the Medicaid program rose from 34 to 42 percent during the 12 quarters
after exit for the 1995 cohort, and remained fairly steady at about 24 percent over the first four quarters
after exit for the 1997 cohort.19 However, Figure 3 reveals that children in the 1995 cohort eligible for, but
not participating in, Medicaid increased as a percentage of the distribution, from 26 percent in the first
quarter after exit to 50 percent in the 12th quarter. For the 1997 cohort, there is also an increase in the
proportion of children eligible for but not participating in Medicaid from 11 percent to 19 percent over
the four quarters.
In general, the results reported in Table 2 indicate substantial post-exit take-up of noncash
benefits in both the 1995 and 1997 group of leavers. These take-up rates are substantially greater than
18
Note that take-up refers to obtaining a card showing Medicaid eligibility, not necessarily receipt of
services under the program. Note also that children born after September 1983 are eligible for Medicaid as long as
their family income is less than the poverty line. Because of this factor, more individuals will be income-eligible in
the second cohort than the first, and this could increase overall take-up rates.
19
The decline in participation in the first quarter of 1997 may be an artifact of a computer error. In late
March, 1997, as the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) prepared its administrative data systems for full
W-2 implementation, the Department “delinked” the CARES determination of eligibility for Medicaid from the
determination of eligibility for AFDC and W-2. Unfortunately, the necessary programming was incomplete and
resulted in incorrect denial of Medicaid for some participants who had earned income. The sudden decline in the
caseload was noted by the Department of Health and Family Services as well as DWD. In April or early May, 1997,
the two agencies discovered the cause of the problem and issued directions to county workers on how to “work
around” the error in CARES to ensure accurate determination of Medicaid eligibility. In September, 1997, the
programming in CARES was corrected.
13
those reported in other studies.20 The take-up rate for the 1997 group of leavers is substantially greater
than that for the 1995 cohort.
It is possible to compare our results with a limited number of other estimates of Food Stamp and
Medicaid take-up after exit. Like our study, Zedlewski and Brauner (1999) also report Food Stamp
participation rates among those who are eligible. However, their estimates are based on survey
information from the National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF) for the whole United States, as
compared to our Wisconsin data based on administrative records.21 Zedlewski and Brauner report that 42
percent of eligible leavers received Food Stamps in the month of their interview in 1997. This compares
to our quarterly Wisconsin figures indicating participation rates from 44–50 percent for those who left in
1995, and rates of 65–75 percent for those who left in 1997. Because families may have received Food
Stamps in one or two rather than all three months, the 1995 quarterly figures seem roughly consistent
with 42 percent monthly rates reported by Zedlewski and Brauner.22 The high take-up rates for the 1997
cohort are substantially greater than the 42 percent rate based on NSAF data. Ten studies funded by the
U.S. Department of health and Human Services also report on Food Stamp participation after exit from
welfare. In most of these studies, between one-third and one-half of leavers received Food Stamps
immediately after exit, and between one-fifth and two-fifth of the families participated in Food Stamps a
year after exit.23
20
While our take-up rates are reported over the eligible population, those of other studies are typically over
the entire group of leavers. As Table 2 indicates, however, annual take-up rates over all leavers are only slightly
lower than those measured over the eligible leavers—from 1.4 to 2.4 percentage points for Food Stamps, and less
than one percentage point for Medicaid cases.
21
Respondents in the NSAF were asked for their current Food Stamp participation status at the time of the
interview. We use administrative records to indicate whether leavers participated over time by calendar quarter after
welfare exit.
22
Earnings from Unemployment Insurance records are available only by calendar quarter, which requires
that calculations of eligibility for Food Stamps using these data be performed by calendar quarter. Actual
participation in the Food Stamp program is, however, a monthly event, and we have considered a family to be
participating in the program if it did so in any of the three months of a quarter. It is more likely that a family would
be participating in at least one of three months of a quarter than in the particular month in which they are surveyed.
23
Since these studies use all leavers rather than just eligible leavers, the percentage receiving benefits is
expected to be somewhat lower than in studies using only the eligible population.
14
For Medicaid, Garrett and Holohan (2000) report that 56 percent of women (regardless of
eligibility) who left welfare within six months before their NSAF interview reported current Medicaid
participation. This figure is quite similar to our finding of a Medicaid participation rate for 1995 case
heads of 63 percent in at least one month in the first quarter after leaving (and 62 percent in the second
quarter). After the first six months, however, the Wisconsin and national findings diverge: Garrett and
Holohan report that between 6 and 12 months after exit, 35 percent of women leavers participated in
Medicaid, whereas we find participation rates among case heads of 59 percent and 57 percent in quarters
three and four.24 Our first and second quarter take-up rates of about 75 percent for eligible case heads in
the 1997 cohort of leavers is again substantially greater than those found in the NSAF data. The DHHSfunded projects generally reported Medicaid participation rates of around 40 percent in the fourth quarter
after exit.
VII.
PREDICTORS OF FOOD STAMP AND MEDICAID TAKE-UP
In this section, we examine the relationship of a number of family characteristics to the take-up of
noncash benefits, using a multivariate descriptive model. Table 3 summarizes the results of probit
analyses of benefit receipt among cases which left cash welfare and were eligible at any point during the
year after exit for noncash benefits. We show separate results for both the 1995 and 1997 groups of
leavers, and also show whether the coefficients for 1995 and 1997 differ. The first set of columns
summarizes results for Food Stamp benefit recipiency; the second set presents results for receipt of
Medicaid benefits by any member of a welfare leaver’s household; the third and fourth sets show results
for receipt of Medicaid by a casehead and by any child in the case.25
24
Similar trends between the two studies exist for children, where both studies find similar participation
rates in the first 6 months after welfare exit, but a divergence after that in the direction of higher rates of Medicaid
participation.
25
The detailed probit estimates that are summarized in Table 3 are presented in Appendix 2.
15
Consider first the Food Stamp results. For both the early and the late group of leavers, a similar
set of variables are related to Food Stamp participation:
•
being African American (+, 1995 only)
•
having more than one child (+)
•
other adults in the household (-)
•
having a child on SSI benefits (-)
•
having more quarters of employment in the two years before leaving welfare (+)
•
having more months of AFDC in the two years before leaving (+)
•
having more than one spell of AFDC in the last two years (+, 1995 only)
•
the percentage of female-headed households in the neighborhood (+, 1997 only)
•
the number of quarters of eligibility for Food Stamps (+)
The remaining columns show results for Medicaid take-up for any person in the household, case
heads and children. Many of the patterns observed for Food Stamp take-up are seen in these columns as
well. However, a few differences do exist. While the respondent’s years of schooling was not
significantly related to the probability of Food Stamp receipt, it is positively related to the probability of
Medicaid use by the mother. Moreover, race is not significantly related to the probability of Medicaid
receipt. Finally, while age of the youngest child is not significantly related to Food Stamp use, it is related
to Medicaid use: children are more likely to be covered in families with younger children, a pattern
consistent with Medicaid eligibility rules.
The positive relationship between the number of previous quarters in the labor force and the
probability of receiving Food Stamps or Medicaid is interesting. Note also that the number of months
receiving welfare in the previous two years has a positive relationship to receiving noncash benefits.
There are a number of potential welfare/work trajectories that might explain these findings. One is that is
there may be a confluence of factors which causes some women to cycle in and out of the labor force
while moving in and out of welfare receipt. This could be due to difficulties in holding a job once one is
16
obtained, necessitating repeated returns to welfare. Or it may be related to the work or living patterns of a
partner, spouse or other adult, who may move in and out of the house or in and out of the labor force,
resulting in complex patterns of welfare receipt and work by the woman. We would also expect women
who exhibit this kind of cycling to understand what benefits are available and how to access them.
Women who combined work and welfare in the past might continue to do so—thus even after they leave
AFDC for work, they continue to receive noncash benefits, even as they have received cash benefits while
working. We test this possibility by creating variables that reflect the number of prior quarters with both
earnings and AFDC. The results of the test support our conjecture—the number of prior quarters with
both work and welfare is positively and significantly related to the probability of receiving Food Stamps
or Medicaid after leaving AFDC. An additional dynamic may be related to the work requirements of the
Food Stamp Employment and Training program: unemployed leavers are subject to FSET’s work
requirements. Women who left W-2 rather than comply with W-2’s work requirements may also choose
not to receive FS because of the similar work requirements. Finally, those who leave AFDC for reasons
other than work (or child support) are ineligible for the Medicaid extension.
The patterns shown in our base model in Table 3 (and Appendix 2, which contains the probit
estimates themselves) describe the direction of the relationship between a number of household
characteristics and the statistical significance of these relationships. However, because the results are
based on probit estimations, it is not easy to determine the magnitude of the effects implicit in the
coefficients. In Table 4, we present simulation results describing the probability of benefit take-up during
the first year after leaving welfare for a number of household types, identified by race, schooling,
location, number of children, age of youngest child, prior welfare receipt, and quarters of eligibility.
Probabilities of take-up are shown for Food Stamps, Medicaid receipt by the case head, and Medicaid
receipt by any child in the family.
The patterns in Table 4 illustrate the prior results. In the first panel, the likelihood of Food Stamp
benefit receipt is shown. The likelihood of receipt for a prototypical African-American living in
17
Milwaukee is about 18 percentage points higher for the 1997 group of leavers, than for the 1995 cohort.
The estimate for a Caucasian woman with the same other characteristics is somewhat lower in 1995 (by 6
percentage points), but differs by only 1 percentage point in 1997. If this Caucasian woman were living in
a rural area (as opposed to Milwaukee), her estimated probability of receiving Food Stamps would be
even lower. Returning to the African American woman in Milwaukee, the most important quantitative
effects simulated are for not working in the prior two years (-16 percentage points in 1995; -5 percentage
points in 1997), and welfare receipt of less than 6 months in the prior two years (-12 percentage points in
1995; -7 percentage points in 1997). Finally, those eligible for only one quarter of the year are
substantially less likely to receive benefits than those eligible all four quarters (the base case).
As noted above, the independent effects of education, race, and location on the probability of
Medicaid participation sometimes differ from that for Food Stamps, but again the effects are modest. For
both the case head and any child, and for both 1995 and 1997, the largest effects on the probability of
receipt are for the prior work experience, length of welfare receipt variables, and number of quarters of
eligibility. For the 1995 cohort, not working during the prior two years decreases the likelihood of the
mother receiving Medicaid benefits by almost 24 percentage points, while having received welfare for
less than 6 months in the prior two years reduces the likelihood of receiving Medicaid benefits by about
16 percentage points. These prior work and welfare experience effects are present for the 1997 cohort as
well, but are less substantial there.26
Local administrative practice may also affect participation in Food Stamps and Medicaid. In
particular, what case managers say about Medicaid and Food Stamps at exit and at required
recertifications and, for working people, the convenience of recertification (such as weekend or evening
26
The difference in effects between the two cohorts could be due to behavioral responses to changes in labor
markets or income support policy, or to differences in underlying characteristics not captured in the observed
variables included in the models. We ran the model over the combined 1995 and 1997 samples, and then applied a
likelihood ratio test of the difference in coefficients between the two groups. This test indicates that the relationship
between background characteristics and take-up is different between the two time periods, and this is true for both
Food Stamps and Medicaid. The results of this test are available from the authors.
18
office hours) may affect the choice of whether or not to participate.27 Our results provide some evidence
of county variation in take-up rates, even after controlling for the composition of the caseload and some
indicators of county characteristics. Linking administrative practices to take-up rates (perhaps following
field observation of local administrative practice) might be important in further exploring the role of
administrative practice in encouraging or discouraging the take-up of benefits.
VIII.
LONGER TERM TAKE-UP OF BENEFITS
Over longer periods of time, we would expect to see mothers who leave welfare increase their
success in the labor market, or to change family composition in ways that lead to a loss of eligibility for
benefits. Such a loss of eligibility can be viewed as a successful transition out of welfare dependency.
However, among those leavers with less success in the labor market or who otherwise remain eligible for
benefits, success may imply higher rates of noncash benefit take-up. Thus, separating out the eligible and
ineligible populations becomes more critical with time.
In Table 5, we show the pattern of benefit receipt over three years for the 1995 cohort. The first
panel shows the steady decline in the proportion of the leavers cohort who receive cash benefits—from 29
percent during the first year after exit to less than eight percent three years after exit. However, the dollar
amount received by those with benefits increases, reflecting the increase in cash benefits under TANF for
smaller families.
The eligibility and take-up rates for Food Stamps and Medicaid are shown in the remaining
panels of Table 5. These figures show that over time a decreasing share of these leavers are eligible for
27
Under statewide policy, recertification is now required quarterly for Food Stamps and annually for
Medicaid. For routine cases, every other Food Stamp recertification may be accomplished by phone contact; the
intervening recertifications require in-person contact. The annual Medicaid recertifications must be conducted in
person. The state’s policy for FS recertification changed in 1999; prior to that (in 1995 and 1997) Food Stamp
recertification required in-person contact every six months. Medicaid recertification policies are largely unchanged
in recent years; in 1995 and 1997, Medicaid recertifications for most cases required annual in person reviews.
19
these benefits.28 For Food Stamps, the percent of cases that are eligible falls from 96 percent in the first
year to 89 percent by the third year after leaving. For Medicaid, the decrease is smaller—from 99 percent
of cases to 95 percent.29 Among those that remain eligible, the take-up rates for both forms of benefits
also falls. While 60 percent of eligible cases received Food Stamp benefits in the first year after leaving,
only 40 percent of these leavers were Food Stamp recipients by the third year. For eligible Medicaid
recipients, the reductions are even larger—from 70 percent to 36 percent for case heads, and from 79
percent to 51 percent for eligible children.30 The mean amount of Food Stamp benefits received also falls
over time, from $1339 in the first year to $1168 by year three.
These participation patterns are consistent with increases in income over time, one of the findings
of previous research on the income patterns of welfare leavers (Cancian et al., 2000; Meyer and Cancian,
1998). Increases in income over time would reduce both eligibility for Food Stamps and the amount of
benefits for which individuals are eligible (which would then reduce the incentive to apply for benefits).
Decreasing participation over time is also consistent with an increasing lack of access to offices that
certify benefit eligibility, high transaction costs, or other administrative barriers. Similarly, the reduction
in the amount of Food Stamp benefits received may reflect an increase in incomes, or the negative effect
of higher incomes on the value of Food Stamp benefits, or other factors. Since the value of Medicaid is
constant over income levels among those eligible (unlike the value of Food Stamps), the steady decline in
the take-up of Medicaid is perhaps more surprising. Part of the explanation for the observed decline may
be that some of these families obtain private employer-based coverage, but this factor is not likely to
account for all of this decrease. The explanation may also lie in some combination of high transaction
28
For comparison, the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development reports that of the 73,204 families
receiving AFDC in April 1995, 83 percent were also receiving Food Stamps and 99.4 percent were receiving
Medicaid. In April 1997 there were 40,849 families receiving AFDC, 82 percent of whom were also receiving Food
Stamps, and 99.6 percent of whom were receiving Medicaid.
29
However, for the heads of these families, the percentage of leavers who are eligible falls from 96 percent
to 80 percent over the three years.
30
years.
The pattern is similar across the three age groups shown in the table: 1–5 years, 6–14 years and 15–18
20
costs to establish eligibility, lack of knowledge, limited access to care under Medicaid providers in the
community in which they live, or other administrative obstacles. Finally, it may be that the portion of
family income captured by our administrative data declines overtime—for example, if women marry we
do not capture spouses earnings, and thus may mismeasure eligibility. More research is clearly needed to
understand these patterns.
IX.
CONCLUSION
The results of our analysis suggest several conclusions. Here we summarize the more salient.
1. Take-up increased among leavers between 1995 and 1997. Although the overall declines in
Food Stamp caseloads have generated much attention in Wisconsin, these declines do not appear to be
attributable to declining rates of participation in these programs among leavers in the first year after
leaving cash welfare. This result is not particularly surprising in that AFDC leavers do not comprise a
large proportion of the Food Stamp caseload. Zedlewski and Brauner (1999) examine national data on
Food Stamp recipients in 1997 and report that about half the caseload involves individuals simultaneously
receiving TANF, about 40 percent involves individuals who have not received AFDC/TANF since 1995,
and only about 10 percent involves those who left AFDC/TANF.
The increasing rate of take-up among welfare leavers in Wisconsin in 1997 is in contrast to
anecdotal reports which suggest that some individuals were not being told about their ongoing eligibility
for Food Stamps and Medicaid in the later period. Perhaps this is related to these leavers having lower
income, which would increase the number who are eligible for Food Stamps and would also make them
eligible for higher amounts (which could then increase take-up). In our ongoing work, we are examining
the relationship between the amount of benefits a leaver is eligible for and take-up.
2. There is some evidence that working while still receiving cash benefits is positively associated
with take-up of noncash benefits after the cash grant ends. It may be that people become accustomed to
21
combining work and the noncash benefits, and that the familiarity of doing so carries over after cash
benefits terminate. If this is so, a policy of allowing people to work and simultaneously receive cash
benefits might stimulate Medicaid and Food Stamp participation after all cash benefits end.
3. The take-up of benefits appears to decline substantially over time even among those who
remain eligible for them. In the case of Food Stamps, it may be that those who are eligible for small
amounts of Food Stamps do not collect them, but it may also be that there exist substantial barriers to
obtaining the benefits for which they are eligible. It is also possible that our measures of income are less
complete in later years, leading us to misclassify a growing portion of leavers as eligible. The drop off to
a Medicaid take-up rate of about 50 percent for eligible children suggests potential problems in the access
to health care for the families of these children.
22
Appendix 1
Sample Definition
We extracted data from the CARES database for all 65,823 AFDC-Regular recipients in
Wisconsin in September 1995 and all 30,980 recipients of either AFDC-Regular or W-2 cash benefits in
Wisconsin in September 1997. For both samples, we excluded cases in which there were no children
identified in the assistance group (n=716, 1995; n=195, 1997), cases in which the children are not cared
for by a parent (n=6,165, 1995; n=3,543, 1997), cases in which the case head was receiving Supplement
Security Income (SSI) (n=6,269, 1995; n=5,516, 1997), cases in which the case head was less than 18 or
more than 65 years old (n=294, 1995; n=91, 1997), cases in which the case head was a male (n=1,679,
1995; n=504, 1997), cases with two parents present in the household (n=482, 1995; n=136, 1997), and
cases which were open in September but received $0 in cash benefits in both September and October
(n=613, 1995; n=387, 1997). Because of the change in eligibility for legal immigrants between 1995 and
1997 we also excluded cases in which any household member was not a US citizen from our analysis
(n=1,408, 1995; n=870, 1997).
This results in final sample sizes of 48,197 for the 1995 cohort, and 19,738 for the 1997 cohort.
Most of the analyses in this report are performed on the subset of each cohort that left cash assistance in
the fourth quarter of the year (the leavers). Specifically, leavers are defined as those who received $0 in
cash assistance for two consecutive months between October and January. By this definition there were
7,879 leavers in the 1995 cohort and 7,828 leavers in the 1997 cohort.
Unlike some earlier reports on welfare leavers in Wisconsin (e.g., Cancian, Haveman, Kaplan,
and Wolfe, 1999) we include all leavers, even those who do not appear in any administrative records after
leaving welfare (“disappearers”). Thus these results are comparable in this respect to DHHS leavers’
studies in other states.
Demographic Variables
The demographic variables were taken from the CARES database and reflect the characteristics
as of September 1995/1997. These variables include mother’s age, mother’s education level, mother’s
race, the number of own and foster children in the household, the age of the youngest child in the
household, the presence of other household members who are not part of the AFDC case, SSI status of
children, and county of residence. For analysis purposes the counties are grouped as follows: Milwaukee
County, other urban counties (Brown, Calumet, Chippewa, Dane Douglas, Eau Claire, Kenosha, La
Crosse, Marathon, Outagamie, Ozukee, Pierce, Racine, Rock, St. Croix, Sheboygan, Washington,
Waukesha, and Winnebago), and rural counties (all other counties).
Earnings Variables
Earnings information came from the state Unemployment Insurance database. We have
information on quarterly earnings of each household member from first quarter 1993 through fourth
quarter 1998. These data were used to calculate the number of quarters the mother worked in the two
years before we observe her (fourth quarter 1993 through third quarter 1995 for the 1995 cohort and
fourth quarter 1995 through third quarter 1997 for the 1997 cohort) as well as her total earnings during
this period. We also calculated total household earnings in each of the four quarters after exit for the 1997
cohort and in each of the 12 quarters after exit for the 1995 cohort. This information is used to estimate
Food Stamp and Medicaid eligibility in the quarters after exit as described below.
23
Food Stamp Variables
Information on Food Stamp receipt for all household members in our samples was obtained from
the CARES database. This information was obtained for the period July 1995 through December 1998 for
the 1995 cohort and the period July 1997 through December 1998 for the 1997 cohort. These data were
used to determine whether anyone in the household was receiving assistance in each of the quarters
following exit, as well as the total amount of Food Stamp benefits received by the household.
Medicaid Variables
Information on Medicaid receipt for all household members in our samples was obtained from the
CARES database. This information was obtained for the period July 1995 through December 1998 for the
1995 cohort and the period July 1997 through December 1998 for the 1997 cohort. These data were used
to determine whether anyone in the household was receiving assistance in each of the quarters following
exit.31
Geographic Variables
The percentage of female-headed households in the zipcode of residence was taken from the 1990
census zipcode-level database, STF3B.
Monthly county-level unemployment rates are from the Wisconsin Department of Workforce
Development, Local Area Unemployment Statistics. The reported unemployment rates are for the entire
county. For members of our samples who reside on an Indian reservation, unemployment rates for the
following counties were used:
Indian Reservation
Red Cliff
Stockbridge Munsee
Lac du Flambeau
Bad River
Oneida
County Unemployment Rate Used
Bayfield
Shawano
Vilas
Ashland
Green Bay MSA
Estimation of Eligibility for Food Stamps and Medicaid
A household is considered to be eligible for Food Stamps in a given quarter if the total earnings
of all household members, as reported in the Wisconsin State Unemployment Insurance (UI) database, are
less than 130 percent of the federal poverty level. If a household was determined not to be eligible by this
standard in a given quarter, but did receive Food Stamps during the quarter, the data was corrected to
reflect that the family was eligible for Food Stamps. This occurred in between 1.6 and 3.4 percent of
cases each quarter. This is due to our assumption that a family’s earnings are spread evenly across the
quarter, whereas a family may have actually had very little earnings in one month, making them eligible
to receive Food Stamps in that month.
31
Note that receipt of Medicaid only indicates the person obtained a Medicaid card, not that they actually
received medical services paid for by Medicaid.
24
We calculated Medicaid eligibility for each household member based on the poverty-related
criteria for eligibility. We do not have data available to estimate eligibility under the more lenient
medically-needy categories of eligibility. Household earnings were calculated as the total earnings
reported in the UI database with deductions of $90/month for work expenses and $30/month plus 1/3 of
the remainder earnings disregard.32 (Note that From October 1995 through August 1997 a person who
was not eligible for AFDC did not receive the $30 plus 1/3 disregard. Since we do not know whether each
person is eligible for AFDC, we use the $30 plus 1/3 disregard for everyone. We also estimated eligibility
using only the $90/month deduction and found that the change in our estimates was insignificant.)
Based on these earnings, adults are eligible if household income is less than the amounts listed in
Table A1. Pregnant women33 and children up to age six are eligible if household income is less than 185
percent of the federal poverty level. Children between the ages of six and 19 born after September 30,
1983 are eligible if household income is less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level. If a person was
determined not to be eligible by this standard in a given quarter, but did receive Medicaid during the
quarter, the data was corrected to reflect that the person was eligible for Medicaid. This occurred in
between 1.9 and 6.5 percent of cases each quarter. About half of these cases were eligible for a twelve
month extension of their Medicaid benefits after obtaining work. The other cases are a combination of
people who were eligible under the medically-needy categories and the result of our smoothing a family’s
earnings over the three months during a quarter.
Table A1.
Family Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Maximum Monthly Income
$311
550
647
772
886
958
1,037
1,099
32
From October 1995 through August 1997 a person who was not eligible for AFDC did not receive the $30
plus 1/3 disregard. Since we do not know whether each person is eligible for AFDC, we use the $30 plus 1/3
disregard for everyone. We also estimated eligibility with only the $90/month deduction and found that the change
in our estimates was insignificant.
33
We do not have data indicating that a woman is pregnant. Therefore, mothers are assumed to be pregnant
for the two quarters preceding the addition of a child into the household.
25
References
Blank, Rebecca M. and Patricia Ruggles. 1993. “When Do Women Use AFDC and Food Stamps? The
Dynamics of Eligibility vs. Participation.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working
Paper 4429. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Cancian, Maria, Robert Haveman, Thomas Kaplan, Daniel Meyer, and Barbara Wolfe. 1999a. “Work,
Earnings, and Economic Well-Being after Welfare: What Do We Know?” In Economic
Conditions and Welfare Reform, edited by Sheldon Danziger. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn
Institute.
Cancian, Maria, Robert Haveman, Thomas Kaplan, and Barbara Wolfe. 1999b. “Post-Exit Earnings and
Benefit Receipt among Those Who Left AFDC in Wisconsin.” IRP Special Report #75. Madison,
WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.
Cancian, Maria, Robert Haveman, Daniel R. Meyer, and Barbara Wolfe. 2000. “Before and After TANF:
The Economic Well-Being of Women leaving Welfare.” Madison, WI: Institute for Research on
Poverty.
Dion, M. Robin and LaDonna Pavetti. “Access to and Participation in Medicaid and the Food Stamp
Program: A Review of the Recent Literature.” Report Submitted to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, Gayle Hamilton, JoAnn Rock, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman,
Amanda Schweder and Laura Storto. 2000. “National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies,
Evaluating Alternative Welfare-to-Work Approaches: Two-Year Impacts for Eleven Programs.”
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Garrett, Bowen and John Holohan. 2000. “Welfare Leavers, Medicaid Coverage, and Private Health
Insurance.” Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Ellwood, David T. and E. Kathleen Adams. 1990. “Medicaid Mysteries: Transitional Benefits, Medicaid
Coverage, and Welfare Exits.” Health Care Financing Review 1990 Annual Supplement.
Isaacs, Julia, and Matthew Lyon. 2000. “Across-State Examination of Families Leaving Welfare:
Findings from the ASPE-Funded Leavers Studies.” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99
Ku, Leighton and B. Bruen. 1999. “The Continuing Decline in Medicaid Coverage.” Washington, D.C.:
Urban Institute.
Loprest, Pamela. 1999. “Families Who Left Welfare: Who Are They and How Are They Doing?”
Assessing the New Federalism Discussion Paper 99-02. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Meyer, Daniel R. and Maria Cancian. 1998. “Economic Well-Being Following an Exit from Aid to
Families with Dependent Children.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60:479–92.
26
Moffitt, Robert, and Jennifer Roff. 2000. “The Diversity of Welfare Leavers.” Johns Hopkins University
http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/welfare_publication.html
Moffitt, Robert A. and Eric P. Slade. 1997. “Health Care Coverage for Children Who Are On and Off
Welfare.” The Future of Children 7:1 (Spring).
Pavetti, LaDonna. Forthcoming. “Welfare Policy in Transition: Redefining the Social Contract for Poor
Citizen Families with Children and Immigrants.” In Understanding Poverty in America: Progress
and Problems, Sheldon Danziger and Robert Haveman, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Rolston, Howard. 2000. “Comments: The Income of former Welfare Recipients.” U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1999a. Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients’
Status. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1999b. Food Stamp Program: Various Factors Have Led to
Declining Participation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.
Urban Institute. 2000. Health Insurance, Access and Use: Wisconsin. Tabulations from the 1997 National
Survey of America’s Families. July.
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 1998. First Quarter 1998 Leavers Study: Preliminary
Process Report. http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/desw2/leavers2.pdf
Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau. 2000. An Evaluation: Food Stamp Program, Department of
Workforce Development. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau.
Zedlewski, Sheila R. and Sarah Brauner. 1999. “Declines in Food Stamp and Welfare Participation: Is
There a Connection?” Assessing the New Federalism Discussion Paper 99-13. Washington, D.C.:
Urban Institute.
Table 1: Characteristics of the AFDC-Regular Caseload in Wisconsin-US Citizens Only
1995
1997
All Cases
Leavers
All Cases
Leavers
Total (N)
48,197
7,879
19,738
7,828
Percent
16.3
39.7
Region
Milwaukee
Other Urban
Rural
55.0
29.1
15.9
38.9
36.4
24.7
75.7
16.8
7.5
56.3
29.7
14.1
Casehead's Age
18-24
25-29
30-39
40+
36.3
23.9
32.2
7.6
32.3
24.1
34.9
8.7
38.0
22.5
30.6
8.9
38.4
23.4
30.3
7.9
Education
<11 Years
11 years
12 Years
>12 Years
22.8
19.7
42.9
14.6
18.0
15.0
48.3
18.6
27.3
25.8
37.1
9.8
22.6
22.3
42.0
13.1
41.4
43.3
6.2
3.1
6.1
54.5
30.9
5.9
3.2
5.5
22.9
59.6
6.8
2.5
8.2
35.9
45.7
7.3
3.6
7.5
Number of Own and Foster Children
1
2
3+
39.1
30.0
30.9
46.9
30.3
22.8
33.1
29.2
37.7
35.6
30.1
34.3
Age of Youngest Child
<1
1
2
3 to 5
6 to 11
12 to 18
18.4
17.0
13.0
24.2
19.5
7.8
14.5
13.9
12.6
26.0
22.5
10.4
23.7
17.6
11.1
21.6
18.7
7.4
27.1
16.8
10.0
20.8
18.3
6.9
Other Household Members
Other Children Only
Other Adults Only
Other Adults and Other Children
2.4
20.4
7.3
1.7
23.0
8.0
3.9
17.9
7.1
3.0
19.0
7.2
9.2
6.4
11.8
8.8
Start of Current Spell (Months before Sept., 1995/1997)1
0-3 months
4-6 months
7-9 months
10-12 months
13-18 months
19-24 months
more than 24 months
14.7
6.7
5.2
4.4
7.1
6.1
55.9
27.6
10.3
6.5
5.4
7.0
5.2
38.0
17.3
10.0
6.8
5.2
6.3
4.5
49.9
21.1
11.9
7.7
6.1
6.6
4.7
41.9
Number of Months Received Welfare in Previous Two Years1
6 months or less
7-12 months
13-18 months
19-24 months
9.7
9.0
12.0
69.3
15.9
13.3
17.0
53.8
8.5
9.3
14.5
67.7
12.6
11.8
16.4
59.2
Number of Quarters with Earnings in Previous Two Years1
None
1-3 quarters
4-7 quarters
8 quarters
27.7
32.3
29.8
10.2
13.9
29.1
37.5
19.4
20.4
34.9
35.0
9.7
12.6
33.8
39.7
13.9
Total Earnings in Previous Two Years1
<$500
$500-$2,499
$2,500-$7,499
$7,500 or more
38.1
19.0
21.1
21.7
20.1
15.7
25.5
38.7
Race
White
African American
Hispanic
Other
Unknown
Child on SSI
1
31.8
22.3
24.5
21.5
21.4
21.7
28.2
28.7
Sample for the 1995 cohort includes caseheads who were 18 or older in October, 1993 (N=44,7161 total and
7,452 leavers); sample for the 1997 cohort includes those 18 or older in October 1995 (N=17,854 total and 7,113
leavers). Previous two years is October, 1993 through September, 1995 for the 1995 cohort, and October 1995
through September, 1997 for the 1997 cohort.
Table 2: Benefit Receipt of Leavers in Year After Exit - US Citizens Only (1998 Dollars)
Quarter
1st Quarter
before Exit
after Exit
All Leavers ( 4th Q 1995 N=7,879)
Percent Receiving AFDC/TANF
Mean AFDC/TANF Amount for Recipients
2nd Quarter
after Exit
3rd Quarter
after Exit
4th Quarter
after Exit
Year
after Exit
100.0
$1,111
17.6
$660
18.5
$866
18.0
$926
16.2
$970
29.1
$2,055
Percent Receiving Food Stamps
Percent of Cases Eligible to Receive Food Stamps
Percent of those Eligible Receiving Food Stamps
Mean Food Stamp Amount for Recipients
90.3
99.9
90.4
$578
45.9
91.4
50.2
$436
43.3
89.3
48.5
$468
39.6
88.2
44.9
$482
37.5
85.3
44.0
$477
57.7
96.0
60.1
$1,339
Percent of Cases Receiving Medicaid
Percent of Cases Eligible to Receive Medicaid
Percent of Eligible Cases Receiving Medicaid
100.0
100.0
100.0
74.1
98.8
75.0
68.6
98.1
70.0
65.8
97.8
67.3
61.0
96.3
63.3
79.7
99.6
80.0
98.5
99.7
98.7
57.9
91.4
63.4
54.9
89.0
61.7
52.4
88.2
59.4
47.1
83.1
56.6
67.2
95.9
70.1
100.0
99.8
99.6
99.7
98.4
74.5
76.6
73.0
74.6
74.4
69.4
79.4
67.5
69.2
69.5
66.7
79.0
64.9
67.0
67.8
62.8
NA
60.9
63.4
68.1
79.4
78.6
77.6
78.1
77.9
100.0
$1,145
13.6
$1,046
16.5
$1,292
17.3
$1,275
15.3
$1,221
25
$3,047
Percent Receiving Food Stamps
Percent of Cases Eligible to Receive Food Stamps
Percent of those Eligible Receiving Food Stamps
Mean Food Stamp Amount for Recipients
91.8
99.9
91.9
$676
72.2
96.7
74.6
$648
66.3
94.9
69.9
$596
62.1
93.6
66.3
$571
59.2
91.0
65.1
$572
80.8
98.3
82.2
$1,925
Percent of Cases Receiving Medicaid
Percent of Cases Eligible to Receive Medicaid
Percent of Eligible Cases Receiving Medicaid
99.9
100.0
99.9
88.7
99.6
89.0
85.5
99.4
86.0
83.6
99.1
84.4
80.4
98.4
81.7
92.3
99.8
92.4
Percent of Caseheads Receiving Medicaid
Percent of Caseheads Eligible to Receive Medicaid
Percent of Eligible Caseheads Receiving Medicaid
95.8
99.4
96.5
71.3
93.8
76.0
68.1
91.8
74.1
66.5
90.6
73.4
62.4
86.8
71.9
80.9
96.9
83.5
Percent of Cases with Eligible Children Receiving Medicaid
Less than 1 year
1-5 years
6-14 years
15-18 years
99.6
97.4
99.6
99.3
97.9
88.8
89.2
88.7
88.4
83.8
85.7
86.6
85.4
85.9
81.3
84.0
86.3
83.4
85.0
80.2
81.3
NA
80.7
82.9
77.9
92.1
90.0
90.8
91.3
87.5
Percent of Caseheads Receiving Medicaid
Percent of Caseheads Eligible to Receive Medicaid
Percent of Eligible Caseheads Receiving Medicaid
Percent of Cases with Eligible Children Receiving Medicaid
Less than 1 year
1-5 years
6-14 years
15-18 years
All Leavers ( 4th Q 1997 N=7,828)
Percent Receiving AFDC/TANF
Mean AFDC/TANF Amount for Recipients
NA - Less than 10 observations in cell.
Table 3: Comparison of Probits on FS/MA Takeup for those Eligible for FS/MA - US Citizens Only
FS Receipt
1995
1997
95 & 97 diff.
Casehead's Age
age
age squared
Education (Compared to Less than a High School Degree)
High school graduate
More than high school graduate
--
Race (Compared to White)
African American
Hispanic
Other
1995
Any MA Receipt
1997
95 & 97 diff.
Casehead MA Receipt
1995
1997
95 & 97 diff.
-++
++
+++
++
1995
-+
+
+++
+
++
Any Child MA Receipt
1997
95 & 97 diff.
-++
+++
+
+
Number of Own and Foster Children (Compared to One)
Two
Three or more
++
Age of Youngest Child (Compared to Less Than One)
One
Two
Three to Five
Six to Eleven
Twelve to Eighteen
+++
+++
***
***
+
+
---
Other Adults in Household
---
---
*
--
*
---
---
Other Children in Household
At Least One Child on SSI
County of Residence (Compared to Other Urban Counties)
Milwaukee
Rural counties
Brown
Dane
Douglas
Eau Claire
Kenosha
Lacrosse
Marathon
Racine
Rock
Waukesha
Winnebago
++
++
+++
++
+
+++
++
+
++
+++
+++
------
+
Number of Quarters with Earnings in Previous Two Years1
(Compared to zero)
1-3 quarters
4-7 quarters
8 quarters
+++
+++
+++
Percent of Female Headed Households in Zipcode of Residence
++
--*
+
-------
---
+
*
--
*
-
*
+++
*
*
+++
+++
+++
*
+++
**
++
+++
+++
*
--
*
++
+
+++
*
--
**
-
--
++
-
*
**
+
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
*
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
+++
+++
**
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
+++
+++
**
*
***
***
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
**
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
*
+++
+++
+
+++
1
Number of Months Received Welfare in Previous Two Years
(Compared to 6 months or less)
7-12 months
13-18 months
19-24 months
+++
+++
+++
More than 1 Spell in Previous Two Years1
++
+
Unemployment Rate in County of Residence2
Number of Quarters Eligible to Receive Benefit
(Compared to one quarter)
Two quarters
Three quarters
Four quarters
Constant Term
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
---
---
***
***
*
+++
+++
+++ positive and significant at the 1% level; ++ positive and significant at the 5% level; + positive and significant at the 10% level.
--- negative and significant at the 1% level; -- negative and significant at the 5% level; - negative and significant at the 10% level.
October, 1993 through September, 1995 for the 1995 cohort, and October 1995 through September, 1997 for the 1997 cohort.
2
September, 1995 for the 1995 cohort and September, 1997 for the 1997 cohort.
1
+
+++
+
**
---
*
*
**
Table 4: Simulation of Probabilities of Benefit Take-Up During the Year After Exit from Welfare - US Citizens Only
1995 Cohort
1997 Cohort
Likelihood of
Change in
Likelihood of
Change in
Mother's Characteristics
Benefit Receipt
Likelihood
Benefit Receipt
Likelihood
Food Stamp Receipt
Prototypical African-American in Milwaukee
Prototypical Caucasian in Milwaukee
Prototypical Caucasian in a rural county
African American in Milwaukee
Less than 12 years education
More than 12 years education
One child
Three or more children
Youngest child age one
Youngest child age 12 - 18
Did not work in previous two years
Received welfare for 6 months or less in last 2 years
Eligible for Food Stamps in one quarter of year
Mother Receiving Medicaid
Prototypical African-American in Milwaukee
Prototypical Caucasian in Milwaukee
Prototypical Caucasian in a rural county
African American in Milwaukee
Less than 12 years education
More than 12 years education
One child
Three or more children
Youngest child age one
Youngest child age 12 - 18
Did not work in previous two years
Received welfare for 6 months or less in last 2 years
Eligible for Medicaid in one quarter of year
Any Child Receiving Medicaid
Prototypical African-American in Milwaukee
Prototypical Caucasian in Milwaukee
Prototypical Caucasian in a rural county
African American in Milwaukee
Less than 12 years education
More than 12 years education
One child
Three or more children
Youngest child age one
Youngest child age 12 - 18
Did not work in previous two years
Received welfare for 6 months or less in last 2 years
Eligible for Medicaid in one quarter of year
75.9
70.3
68.4
-5.6
-7.5
94.1
93.0
88.2
-1.1
-5.9
77.7
74.8
75.0
78.5
75.1
71.2
60.0
63.9
33.3
1.8
-1.1
-0.9
2.6
-0.8
-4.7
-15.9
-12.0
-42.6
94.2
93.6
90.7
95.1
94.6
94.0
88.8
86.7
74.2
0.1
-0.5
-3.4
1.0
0.5
-0.1
-5.3
-7.4
-19.9
80.3
81.3
85.5
1.0
5.2
92.2
92.6
94.4
0.4
2.2
77.7
81.9
81.1
79.4
78.8
77.6
56.5
64.2
37.6
-2.6
1.6
0.8
-0.9
-1.5
-2.7
-23.8
-16.1
-42.7
92.2
94.5
90.9
91.0
90.3
88.8
85.3
82.9
52.2
0.0
2.3
-1.3
-1.2
-1.9
-3.4
-6.9
-9.3
-40.0
84.0
85.9
90.8
1.9
6.8
95.0
95.5
96.4
0.5
1.4
82.4
85.4
82.7
84.0
82.1
85.5
65.0
66.7
54.7
-1.6
1.4
-1.3
0.0
-1.9
1.5
-19.0
-17.3
-29.3
95.1
96.0
93.7
94.8
94.7
94.1
88.5
86.4
72.4
0.1
1.0
-1.3
-0.2
-0.3
-0.9
-6.5
-8.6
-22.6
NOTE: Prototypical is defined as age 29, 12 years of education, 2 children, youngest child age 3-5, no other household members, no
child on SSI, received welfare for 19-24 months in last two years in a single spell, worked 4-7 quarters in previous two years, and was
eligible to receive benefit in all four quarters of the year. The mean unemployment rate and percentage female-headed households
specific to the county/region are used.
Table 5: Benefit Receipt of Leavers in Three Years After Exit - US Citizens Only (1998 Dollars)
First Year Second Year
Third Year
After Exit
After Exit
After Exit
All Leavers ( 4th Q 1995 N=7,879)
Percent Receiving AFDC/TANF
Mean AFDC/TANF Amount for Recipients
Three Years
After Exit
29.1
$2,055
18.2
$2,509
7.6
$2,684
34.6
$3,638
57.7
96.0
60.1
$1,339
43.2
92.7
46.7
$1,325
35.6
89.4
39.8
$1,168
66.1
98.2
67.4
$2,663
Percent of Cases Receiving Medicaid
Percent of Cases Eligible to Receive Medicaid
Percent of Eligible Cases Receiving Medicaid
79.7
99.6
80.0
59.8
97.4
61.4
49.4
95.4
51.7
84.2
99.8
84.4
Percent of Caseheads Receiving Medicaid
Percent of Caseheads Eligible to Receive Medicaid
Percent of Eligible Caseheads Receiving Medicaid
67.2
95.9
70.1
44.0
87.1
50.5
29.1
79.7
36.4
73.5
97.8
75.1
Percent of Cases with Eligible Children Receiving Medicaid
Less than 1 year
1-5 years
6-14 years
15-18 years
79.4
78.6
77.6
78.1
77.9
60.9
NA
60.4
59.5
62.4
51.3
NA
51.1
49.1
52.6
83.7
NA
81.9
76.4
73.6
Percent Receiving Food Stamps
Percent of Cases Eligible to Receive Food Stamps
Percent of those Eligible Receiving Food Stamps
Mean Food Stamp Amount for Recipients
NA: Less than 10 observations.
Appendix 2, Table 1: Probability of Food Stamp Take-Up Among Households Eligible to Receive Food Stamps - US Citizens Only
1995 Cohort
1997 Cohort
Coefficient
Std. Error
Coefficient
Std. Error
Casehead's Age
age
0.003
0.017
0.019
0.017
age squared
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Education (Compared to Less than a High School Degree)
High school graduate
More than high school graduate
1995 and 1997
Cohorts Different
-0.058
-0.094
0.035 *
0.046 **
-0.010
-0.048
Race (Compared to White)
African American
Hispanic
Other
0.169
0.132
0.101
0.050 ***
0.070 *
0.089
0.086
0.068
0.195
0.052
0.078
0.103 *
Number of Own and Foster Children (Compared to One)
Two
Three or more
0.029
0.115
0.038
0.046 **
0.238
0.327
0.046 ***
0.053 ***
Age of Youngest Child (Compared to Less Than One)
One
Two
Three to Five
Six to Eleven
Twelve to Eighteen
-0.018
0.004
0.007
-0.054
-0.137
0.057
0.060
0.054
0.061
0.079 *
-0.009
-0.041
-0.057
-0.021
-0.065
0.057
0.069
0.057
0.066
0.090
Other Adults in Household
-0.169
0.036 ***
-0.273
0.042 ***
*
0.055
-0.117
0.059 **
*
0.065 ***
Other Children in Household
0.039
0.040
0.058
***
***
At Least One Child on SSI
-0.257
0.063 ***
-0.318
County of Residence (Compared to Other Urban Counties)
Milwaukee
Rural counties
Brown
Dane
Douglas
Eau Claire
Kenosha
La Crosse
Marathon
Racine
Rock
Waukesha
Winnebago
0.118
0.110
0.088
0.232
0.156
0.260
0.130
0.245
0.196
-0.064
0.083
-0.049
-0.030
0.113
0.075
0.109
0.102 **
0.183
0.129 **
0.102
0.132 *
0.143
0.102
0.105
0.118
0.124
0.317
0.211
0.465
0.292
0.325
0.396
0.405
0.596
0.174
0.236
0.390
0.223
0.133
0.139
0.116
0.171
0.128
0.170
0.184
0.137
0.206
0.208
0.134
0.147
0.162
0.189
*
***
*
*
Number of Quarters with Earnings in Previous Two Years1
(Compared to zero)
1-3 quarters
4-7 quarters
8 quarters
0.312
0.450
0.591
0.048 ***
0.048 ***
0.056 ***
0.219
0.344
0.474
0.056 ***
0.056 ***
0.073 ***
*
Percent of Female Headed Households in Zipcode of Residence
0.241
0.153
0.584
0.159 ***
**
Number of Months Received Welfare in Previous Two Years1
(Compared to 6 months or less)
7-12 months
13-18 months
19-24 months
0.177
0.341
0.348
0.055 ***
0.055 ***
0.044 ***
0.140
0.287
0.449
0.062 **
0.066 ***
0.055 ***
*
More than 1 Spell in Previous Two Years1
0.090
0.037 **
0.059
0.044
0.033
0.007
0.026
0.103 ***
0.093 ***
0.081 ***
0.135
0.383
0.911
0.135
0.123 ***
0.107 ***
Constant Term
-1.741
0.294 ***
-1.290
Log Likelihood
-4726.1
-3196.5
Sample Size
7,566
7,696
* Statistically significant at the 10% level.
** Statistically significant at the 5% level.
*** Statistically significant at the 1% level.
NOTE: Model also controls for missing race and percent of female headed households variables.
1
October, 1993 through September, 1995 for the 1995 cohort, and October 1995 through September, 1997 for the 1997 cohort.
2
September, 1995 for the 1995 cohort and September, 1997 for the 1997 cohort.
0.310 ***
Unemployment Rate in County of Residence2
Number of Quarters Eligible to Receive Benefit
(Compared to one quarter)
Two quarters
Three quarters
Four quarters
-0.013
0.599
0.843
1.136
**
*
***
**
*
**
***
***
*
***
***
*
Appendix 2, Table 2: Probability of Medicaid Take-Up By Casehead Among Households With a Casehead Eligible to Receive Medicaid - US Citizens Only
1995 Cohort
1997 Cohort
1995 and 1997
Coefficient
Std. Error
Coefficient
Std. Error
Cohorts Different
Casehead's Age
age
-0.025
0.018
-0.039
0.019 **
age squared
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000 *
Education (Compared to Less than a High School Degree)
High school graduate
More than high school graduate
0.088
0.148
0.036 **
0.048 ***
0.000
0.179
0.040
0.062 ***
Race (Compared to White)
African American
Hispanic
Other
-0.038
0.025
-0.036
0.052
0.073
0.091
-0.028
0.076
0.034
Number of Own and Foster Children (Compared to One)
Two
Three or more
-0.031
-0.063
0.039
0.047
0.083
0.004
0.049 *
0.053
Age of Youngest Child (Compared to Less Than One)
One
Two
Three to Five
Six to Eleven
Twelve to Eighteen
-0.030
0.090
0.021
0.091
-0.070
0.060
0.063
0.056
0.063
0.081
-0.010
0.009
0.109
0.022
-0.090
0.058
0.070
0.059 *
0.065
0.091
Other Adults in Household
-0.087
0.037 **
-0.032
0.044
Other Children in Household
-0.026
0.058
-0.128
0.062 **
At Least One Child on SSI
-0.062
0.066
-0.060
0.066
County of Residence (Compared to Other Urban Counties)
Milwaukee
Rural counties
Brown
Dane
Douglas
Eau Claire
Kenosha
La Crosse
Marathon
Racine
Rock
Waukesha
Winnebago
0.018
0.105
0.082
0.051
0.060
0.175
0.006
-0.050
0.181
-0.176
0.068
0.002
0.094
0.119
0.080
0.116
0.108
0.195
0.142
0.107
0.139
0.155
0.106 *
0.110
0.125
0.132
0.015
0.101
-0.056
-0.264
-0.124
0.350
-0.098
0.186
-0.388
-0.079
0.023
0.261
-0.131
0.153
0.133
0.184
0.141 *
0.183
0.227
0.149
0.235
0.221 *
0.147
0.162
0.199
0.208
Number of Quarters with Earnings in Previous Two Years1
(Compared to zero)
1-3 quarters
4-7 quarters
8 quarters
0.465
0.687
0.948
Percent of Female Headed Households in Zipcode of Residence
-0.127
0.049 ***
0.049 ***
0.059 ***
0.157
0.327
0.367
0.496
-0.022
0.053
0.079
0.107
0.057 ***
0.057 ***
0.074 ***
0.178
0.383
0.488
0.057 ***
0.058 ***
0.046 ***
0.284
0.303
0.469
0.066 ***
0.068 ***
0.057 ***
More than 1 Spell in Previous Two Years1
0.061
0.040
0.005
0.045
-0.034
0.034
-0.040
0.028
Number of Quarters Eligible to Receive Benefit
(Compared to one quarter)
Two quarters
Three quarters
Four quarters
0.459
0.912
1.167
0.098 ***
0.084 ***
0.073 ***
0.274
0.717
1.362
Constant Term
-0.882
0.303 ***
-0.044
Log Likelihood
-4184.9
-3061.0
Sample Size
7,558
7,584
* Statistically significant at the 10% level.
** Statistically significant at the 5% level.
*** Statistically significant at the 1% level.
NOTE: Model also controls for missing race and percent of female headed households variables.
1
October, 1993 through September, 1995 for the 1995 cohort, and October 1995 through September, 1997 for the 1997 cohort.
2
September, 1995 for the 1995 cohort and September, 1997 for the 1997 cohort.
*
**
*
***
***
0.151
Number of Months Received Welfare in Previous Two Years1
(Compared to 6 months or less)
7-12 months
13-18 months
19-24 months
Unemployment Rate in County of Residence2
*
0.112 **
0.100 ***
0.088 ***
*
0.326
*
Appendix 2, Table 3: Probability of Medicaid Take-Up By Any Child in Household Among Households With a Child Eligible to Receive Medicaid - US Citizens Only
1995 Cohort
1997 Cohort
1995 and 1997
Coefficient
Std. Error
Coefficient
Std. Error
Cohorts Different
Casehead's Age
age
-0.028
0.019
-0.045
0.022 **
age squared
0.000
0.000 *
0.001
0.000 **
Education (Compared to Less than a High School Degree)
High school graduate
More than high school graduate
0.065
0.122
Race (Compared to White)
African American
Hispanic
Other
Number of Own and Foster Children (Compared to One)
Two
Three or more
Age of Youngest Child (Compared to Less Than One)
One
Two
Three to Five
Six to Eleven
Twelve to Eighteen
0.038 *
0.051 **
-0.007
0.097
0.048
0.072
-0.081
-0.070
-0.057
0.054
0.075
0.097
-0.049
-0.008
0.139
0.063
0.094
0.133
0.054
0.054
0.042
0.050
0.115
0.095
-0.167
-0.015
-0.089
-0.083
-0.027
0.057 **
0.063
0.062 ***
0.067
0.060
0.067
0.088
-0.182
-0.188
-0.152
-0.169
-0.237
0.070
0.084
0.071
0.079
0.109
0.027
0.040
-0.011
0.053
Other Children in Household
-0.051
0.061
-0.036
0.075
At Least One Child on SSI
-0.015
0.071
-0.044
0.079
County of Residence (Compared to Other Urban Counties)
Milwaukee
Rural counties
Brown
Dane
Douglas
Eau Claire
Kenosha
La Crosse
Marathon
Racine
Rock
Waukesha
Winnebago
-0.191
0.115
0.205
0.051
-0.186
0.416
-0.073
-0.015
0.202
-0.259
-0.038
0.064
0.233
0.127
0.085
0.128
0.114
0.201
0.170 **
0.113
0.149
0.171
0.111 **
0.117
0.132
0.148
0.037
0.115
0.077
-0.330
0.049
0.010
0.030
-0.001
-0.079
-0.150
0.012
0.536
-0.323
0.183
0.161
0.227
0.167 **
0.224
0.246
0.182
0.264
0.266
0.175
0.193
0.284 *
0.237
Number of Quarters with Earnings in Previous Two Years1
(Compared to zero)
1-3 quarters
4-7 quarters
8 quarters
0.362
0.611
0.836
0.050 ***
0.051 ***
0.061 ***
0.344
0.445
0.824
0.064 ***
0.065 ***
0.093 ***
0.189
0.162
0.146
0.183
0.218
0.440
0.564
0.059 ***
0.060 ***
0.047 ***
0.203
0.250
0.548
0.076 ***
0.078 ***
0.066 ***
0.060
0.042
0.043
0.054
-0.002
0.037
-0.053
0.033
Other Adults in Household
Percent of Female Headed Households in Zipcode of Residence
Number of Months Received Welfare in Previous Two Years
(Compared to 6 months or less)
7-12 months
13-18 months
19-24 months
More than 1 Spell in Previous Two Years1
2
Unemployment Rate in County of Residence
Number of Quarters Eligible to Receive Benefit
(Compared to one quarter)
Two quarters
Three quarters
Four quarters
***
**
**
**
**
*
**
**
1
0.028
0.443
0.878
0.191
0.163 ***
0.141 ***
0.080
0.601
1.049
Constant Term
-0.469
0.340
0.663
Log Likelihood
-3685.9
-2018.4
Sample Size
7,833
7,808
* Statistically significant at the 10% level.
** Statistically significant at the 5% level.
*** Statistically significant at the 1% level.
NOTE: Model also controls for missing race and percent of female headed households variables.
1
October, 1993 through September, 1995 for the 1995 cohort, and October 1995 through September, 1997 for the 1997 cohort.
2
September, 1995 for the 1995 cohort and September, 1997 for the 1997 cohort.
*
0.328
0.315 *
0.271 ***
0.460
**
Figure 1: Food Stamp Receipt
1995 Cohort
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1Q96 2Q96 3Q96 4Q96 1Q97 2Q97 3Q97 4Q97 1Q98 2Q98 3Q98 4Q98
Not Elig
Elig/Not Part
Participating
1997 Cohort
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1Q98
2Q98
Not Elig
Elig/Not Part
3Q98
4Q98
Participating
Figure 2: Mother's Medicaid Receipt
1995 Cohort
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1Q96 2Q96 3Q96 4Q96 1Q97 2Q97 3Q97 4Q97 1Q98 2Q98 3Q98 4Q98
Not Elig
Elig/Not Part
Participating
1997 Cohort
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1Q98
2Q98
Not Elig
Elig/Not Part
3Q98
Participating
4Q98
Figure 3: Children's Medicaid Receipt
1995 Cohort
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1Q96 2Q96 3Q96 4Q96 1Q97 2Q97 3Q97 4Q97 1Q98 2Q98 3Q98 4Q98
Not Elig
Elig/Not Part
Participating
1997 Cohort
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1Q98
2Q98
Not Elig
Elig/Not Part
3Q98
Participating
4Q98